ORDER : C.L. SONI, J. The petitioner, who was original defendant no. 2 in Summary Civil Suit No. 704 of 2007 filed by respondent no. 1 herein before the learned Board of Nominees under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act (the Act) has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 09.03.2012 made by the learned Judge, Court No. 11, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below application exhibit 23. 2. It appears that in above referred suit, an award was made for recovery of the suit amount with interest from the defendants therein including the petitioner. To execute such award, respondent no. 1 filed Execution Petition No. 140 of 2008 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. 3. It appears that in such execution petition, respondent no. 1 filed application at exhibit 11 for garnishee order to deduct the amount under the decree from the salary of the petitioner. Such application was granted on 16.04.2010 The petitioner, thereafter, preferred application at exhibit 23 in the said execution petition to set aside the order passed below application at exhibit 11 on the ground that the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal allowed Revision Application No. 56 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner and the judgment and order made against the petitioner in the suit was set aside. The learned Judge rejected such application by impugned order on the ground that such application was not maintainable. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Ketan Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the judgment and order passed in the suit against the petitioner was set aside, the suit was restored and the suit is being proceeded before the learned Board of Nominees. Mr. Shah submitted that since, the judgment and order which was sought to be executed against the petitioner in Execution Petition No. 140 of 2008, itself was set aside, the execution proceedings against the petitioner would not survive and when the execution proceedings could not be proceeded against the petitioner, the order of garnishee passed in the proceedings of the execution petition could not be allowed to be implemented. Mr. Shah submitted that this Court has granted stay against implementation of garnishee order against the petitioner and the petitioner has already retired and, therefore, there is no question of now implementing garnishee order. 5. Learned advocate Mr. P.M Darji appearing for respondent no. Mr. Shah submitted that this Court has granted stay against implementation of garnishee order against the petitioner and the petitioner has already retired and, therefore, there is no question of now implementing garnishee order. 5. Learned advocate Mr. P.M Darji appearing for respondent no. 1-original plaintiff could not dispute that the judgment and order made by the learned Board of Nominees in the suit filed by respondent no. 1 was set aside, so far as the petitioner is concerned and that suit is restored and being proceeded against the petitioner. Mr. Darji, however, submitted that there is no illegality or error in the impugned order as the learned Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that it was not open to him to sit in appeal over the order made below application exhibit 11 in execution petition. 6. The other respondents are formal parties to decide the controversy involved in the present petition. 7. The Court having heard learned advocates for both the sides finds that though, the learned Judge could not have set aside the order made on application below exhibit 11 as prayed for by the petitioner in application at exhibit 23, however, when there is no dispute that the judgment and award made by the learned Board of Nominees in the suit preferred by respondent no. 1 was set aside in so far as the petitioner was concerned and when the suit against the petitioner is now restored and being proceeded, the execution proceedings would not survive against the petitioner and when the execution proceedings would not survive against the petitioner, there is no question of executing the judgment rendered in the suit preferred by respondent no. 1 or any order made in the execution proceedings. In such view of the matter, even without interfering with the impugned order, it is required to be directed that the order made in the execution proceedings shall not be implemented and acted upon against the petitioners. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with direction that the proceedings of Execution Petition No. 140 of 2008 shall not survive against the petitioner and the garnishee order made below application exhibit 11 in the execution proceedings shall not be implemented or acted upon against the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.